The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-12-20
PrIma FacIe Evidence.


To the Editor Of the Press:
Inasmuch as the practical question Is.
"What did the Legislature do2" and not
"What did the Legislature actually intend to
do?" comments upon your article Of this
morning may be superfiuous.
But as l am not certain whether you aeree
in the definition Of the term ',primG Jacie ey-
idence," which understand has been the
settled definition in criminal cases, ask
your indulgence for furthers discussion.
In cica cases, prina tacie evidence un-
doubtedly requires" the jury to find ver-
diet in accordance Herewith, and the court
has the power TO ordersuch verdict; but In
criminal cases, prima taeie evidence Is sufs
fieient evidence TO authorize, but not TO re-
q,tire the jury to find accordingly;a a sufficient
reason is that the legislative department has
not the constitutional power to 'require"
the jury to convict in criminal case at all.
The correctness of this definition Is shown
by the fact that Congress uses as equivalent
terms, ''prima faeie evidence" evidence
sufficient to authorize conviction" and "suffi-
cient prima facie evidence to convict"
Now, the Legislature passes law declar-
ing that certain state Of facts "shall be
held to be primG facie evidence" that the ac-
cused is guilty as charged in the Indictment.
There certainly is nothing in the statute
which gives to the term '.primG faeie evi-
denceD any meaning different from its we'll
settled meaning when applied in criminal
cases. 1 scarcely need say that courts In
constituting a statute. are limited to its Ian
guage and other matters Of which they have
Judicial knowledge. and cannot canvass the
members of the Legislature to ascertain the
actual intent and meaning Of those who vot-
ed for it, 1t would seem that the courts
will be slow TO hold that the Legislature In
tended TO say what 1t did not say.
However, when we come TO the question
whether the legislature actually intended
that the term ...primq facie evidence" should
have a meaning different from its settled
meaning in criminal cases, and such a mean
ing as makes the law clearly unconstitution-
al, you must pardon me II do not accept
the evidence Of Mr.. Heath as conclusive, or
reason to believe that his attention was not
called to it at the time. In one Of the labor
bills" presented by him, he had the legisla-
ture declare that certain state OF facts
should be conclusive" evidence OF the guilt
of the accused in criminal prosecution. He
proposed the section Of his bill containing
thisprovision, and supported u, with other
provisions, in a most carefully prepared
speech. 1t was suggested TO him that the
term conclusive" rendered that particular
provision Of his bill unconstitutional This
evidently had not occurred TO him, but as his
amendment was defeated there was no occa-
sion for him to consider II further. Tnis
was after the 'liquor bill'' had been passed
to be engrOssed In both houses, but not IN
the same form in both; this particular pro-
vision, however, swas the same In both bills.
/ do not agree with you that the fact that
the license was previously admissible as evil
dence shows, or tends to show, that the
Legislature intended to require" the jury
to convict upon that evidence. Because,
among other reasons, in every single in
stance In which Congress has enacted sim
liar laws (and they are numerous) the facts
made primG fdcie evidence were evidence
under existing laws so that, upon your rea-
soning. Congress must have Intended TO re
quire" conviction upon those facts. But
such construction OF the law has never
been suggested in the United States, so far
as l ever heard.
But further: Mr.. Looney was a member
of the committee which reported the bill
containing this provision. lie says tnat
when Gen. Dow and Mr.. Carleton presented
this provision to the committee, ne asked
them the object Of embodying 1t IN the bill,
iRasmuch as such certificate was already ad-
miSsible in evidence, and the reply was that
1t would certainly do no harm to put IL In the
bill, and 1t would call TO 1t the attention OF
the court and county attorneys, some OF
whom had not been In the habit Of using
this evidence. Gen. Dow endorses that
statement Of Mr.. Looney.
In regard to Judge BOnney's charge In the
Guppy case, have only to say that that was
In the nature Of cipI case, and was not an
indictment In a criminal case. That he gave
the correct rule in a civil case Is beyond
question; that he will hold that the rule In
ciril cases prevails also in criminal cases,
remains to be seen.
had not seen Judge Whitehouse's charge
until saw 1t In this mornings PRESS. /
had seen only an abstract which, however,
contained statements not In the part of his
charge which you give. From what read.
understood, that he instructed the jury 10
the effect that IL statute could bear two
constructions, and one OF them would make
the Statute unconstitutional, and the other
would not. the latter must be adopted that
q construction which would require" the
jury to convict would make Ii unc0nstitu-
tional and, therefore, the construction that
the law authorizes the jury to convict, must
be adopted. / did not understand him TO
say that the certificate, Without The aid Of
other facts tending to the same effect, would
not authorize them to convict, II he did so
state, he did indeed .declare the law TO be
unconstitutional; but do not believe that
he intended TO convey any such meaning;
but that he meant that the jury should con-
slider all the circumstances proved, as well as
the licenses, and upon them all make up
their verdicts
1t has gone out that Judge Whitehouse's
charge has annulled the late law, and that
the prohiDtory system has received check.
/ am glad to agree with you that the last
proposition Is not true, though we come 70
our conclusion by different routes. l am un-
willing also, by my silence, TO admit that
there were not many who understood the law
as herein stated and at the same time believe
that it would materially aid In the execution
Of the prohibitory law. J. III. ID.